Click to expand
Latest users (1): kanadetenshi, anonymous(16).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#60203 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]
If you could choose anywhere in the world to live other than where you do right now, where would it be, and why?
User avatar #60224 to #60203 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/25/2014) [-]
I'll probably never leave the American Southwest for more than a vacation. It's a wonderful place to live.
User avatar #60217 to #60203 - feelythefeel (03/25/2014) [-]
The part of area 51 where they're keeping the cat girls. They're in there, I just know it.
User avatar #60211 to #60203 - undeadwill (03/24/2014) [-]
The other half of Texas.
User avatar #60340 to #60211 - hoodedmetal ONLINE (03/27/2014) [-]
You are in the good half
User avatar #60360 to #60340 - undeadwill (03/27/2014) [-]
Texas is the good half
User avatar #60205 to #60203 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
New Hampshire
it seems libertarian-ish
#60204 to #60203 - pebar has deleted their comment [-]
#60202 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]
Lets say Earth colonizes a planet (one that has no other intelligent life), a planet basically the same as earth, except humans had never evolved there. So, a large number of humans are sent there.
How would you want that planet set up, politically, and socioeconomically?
User avatar #60212 to #60202 - thatguyontheright ONLINE (03/25/2014) [-]
Let the colonists develop on their own. It would be rather difficult to run that planet from here, so they should be autonomous.
User avatar #60183 - beatmasterz (03/24/2014) [-]
"Terrorism is out of the question, we have evidence suggesting so!"
No evidence presented, week later turns out communication had been shut off manually and plane changed course manually.

"Plane is lost in the Indian Ocean, there is irrefutable evidence!"
No evidence presented.

So this plane is confirmed for human trafficking right?
#60172 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Pebars nightmare.
User avatar #60210 to #60172 - undeadwill (03/24/2014) [-]
Yeah while I think private roads are far better, public roads aren't a bad idea if, that the land the road uses was sold at the owners market price. That way private property rights are still upheld.
User avatar #60219 to #60210 - schnizel (03/25/2014) [-]
>Goes to hospital
>Driving on a road
>Money plz
>I don't have any
>it's an emergency!
>No cash, no money.
And you know the ones who own that road can use it for whatever they want?
User avatar #60225 to #60219 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/25/2014) [-]
The hospitals wouldn't treat you since you don't have money though.
User avatar #60230 to #60225 - schnizel (03/25/2014) [-]
That is why you have healthcare.
User avatar #60236 to #60230 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/25/2014) [-]
If you don't have money for roads then why would you have money for healthcare?
User avatar #60237 to #60236 - schnizel (03/25/2014) [-]
I mean that you should not pay for toll booth on the roads.
User avatar #60239 to #60237 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/25/2014) [-]
But capitalism. And jobs.
User avatar #60240 to #60239 - schnizel (03/25/2014) [-]
We got it nigga. Chill.
Think about the Moon.
User avatar #60173 to #60172 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
Public roads?

I don't have a problem with roads being publicly funded.
If it's better to have something be provided by government, then fine, as long as people are getting their money's worth. But it's very important that programs be kept on as local a level as possible so that people can see the effects of their tax dollars.
User avatar #60175 to #60173 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Isn't all tax theft?
User avatar #60186 to #60175 - johnstuartmill (03/24/2014) [-]
Even I do not get this argument. Granted not every libertarian uses it but I just do not understand how ALL taxes can be theft. What if I support the government and feel like being supportive and pay my taxes?
User avatar #60196 to #60186 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
The point is that not everyone supports certain programs. Roads have almost universal support, but take social security for example; I would be better off taking the tax money that I would pay into it and investing it elsewhere for a retirement.
Most of the people who support it today are old and don't have that option anymore.
User avatar #60198 to #60196 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
What if the people don't agree and they want to give the money to education?
User avatar #60187 to #60186 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
User avatar #60189 to #60187 - johnstuartmill (03/24/2014) [-]
Oh yes I forgot about that tiny fact :/ Well if you can dodge taxes then you can dodge a dodge ball!
User avatar #60190 to #60189 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
User avatar #60195 to #60194 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Fucking privlidbed goys
sniff sniff
oy vey
another holocaust
User avatar #60192 to #60190 - johnstuartmill (03/24/2014) [-]
Either way I have read into privatizing roads and the process itself is pretty interesting. The hardest part is making it private because who has the rights to the road? Obviously taxpayers but how much are you entitled to etc. After that it gets simple, just let the market do its work. I am still a skeptic, but government funded roads are the norm so it makes sense.
User avatar #60193 to #60192 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
*tips nazihat*
User avatar #60201 to #60193 - jewishcommunazi (03/24/2014) [-]
Stahlhelm - courtesy of Wikipedia.
User avatar #60176 to #60175 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
Roads are mostly paid for by gas taxes so even if you believe that, consent is implied by buying gas and using it to drive.
Also, only extremists and anarchists use "taxation is theft" to justify removing government programs and they often ignore the actual effects. It's true that many government programs are detrimental to society and should be removed, but saying "dats stealing" is not a good enough argument.
User avatar #60178 to #60176 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Still need a road for a gas pump. And how do you think the road got there in the first place?
User avatar #60180 to #60178 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
could have been the owner of the gas station wanting to allow customers to buy his gas.
User avatar #60181 to #60180 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Still does not change the point that the road was constructed by taxpayers money to allow transportation.
I don't work with coulda woulda buts.
User avatar #60182 to #60181 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
So? That's not a reason by itself for roads to continue being funded by tax payers.

You must argue that it's more economically efficient for roads to be public.
User avatar #60184 to #60182 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
A tax is a tool for the people, each give a little and you are given a service or money in return.
1.You build a road
2.People drive on it
#60168 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]

Prove that the illuminati exists with evidence beyond denial.
User avatar #60171 to #60168 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
not this fucking thing again
their society is no secret
but what goes in there is
#60185 to #60171 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]
"not this fucking thing again"?
Do you mean "what goes on in there"?

As far as I'm concerned, the bavarian illuminati ceased to exist about the 18th century
User avatar #60188 to #60185 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
They got rekt but they continued on trough the Rothchild.
Nigga I got a you know what club in my city where they do you know what.
User avatar #60161 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
This is a bretty cool website, try it out.

This one surprised me a bit.
#60159 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
So I'm going to be playing this game (A 1257 A.D Europe mod for M&B:W) at some point and I want to make Germany. Just a random idea I had that stuck in my mind.

Does anyone here know enough about politics and such to be able to outline the ethnically German areas of this map? Especially those that were German at the time. If someone is able to point out where Berlin is/would be it would also be appreciated.
#60233 to #60159 - teoragnar (03/25/2014) [-]
There are actually no real "ethnically" germans, but at these times the definition of a german was someone who spoke German.
But I'd say that valeriya map does cover the german speaking areas of that time (exept that he forgot the area around Wien and Graz.
#60163 to #60159 - valeriya (03/24/2014) [-]
The German identity is something pretty damn new, we're talking 1848 if I remember rightly is when it started to show up, as an identity and the idea of a German nation state began to exist, its' important to remember that Germany was a collection of states, under the holy roman empire until the early 1800's after that it was usually in alliance under the strongest state nearest to them, (I.e Prussia) in the north of Germany, in the south of germany (bavaria, wurtemburg etc) Austria. It's a really confusing modern history, the idea of ethnic nation states doesn't really apply to feudal times, it's more "How many people can I conquer" (Note the hre was orignally including parts of Italy and the low countries) then "Unite germany" since german doesn't exist. Berlin is roughly aroung the blue dot, Brandenburg...
User avatar #60165 to #60163 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
I'll be going to bed soon, if I don't reply immediately I'll do so in the morning.
User avatar #60164 to #60163 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
I know there wasn't an actual German nation until recently, but was there at least a general area of Germanic peoples in the same sort of vein as, say, Latin or Scandinavian peoples?
#60166 to #60164 - valeriya (03/24/2014) [-]
It's pretty hard to say really, I'm not sure if the holy roman empire had census's or anything, I know the Normans carried out census's after they invaded England... I think you might as well just conquer parts of poland which will in future be conquered by Prussia and filled with germans (Blue line to help but I'm terrible at outlining things, just conquer up until konigsberg Byposted
#60200 to #60166 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
I could have sworn that that bit was a bit thinner like this.
User avatar #60209 to #60208 - feelythefeel (03/24/2014) [-]
Thanks. You've been very helpful and informative.
#60150 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
So, Russia just threatened to bomb Yellowstone with a Tsar-Bomba. Boy, this is gon' b gud
User avatar #60157 to #60154 - teoberry (03/24/2014) [-]
Earlier on a different board this same guy was saying that it was US planning to do it so they can just avoid fretting about an explosion and get it over with. Either it's just anons being anons or he's retarded enough to think an atomic bomb is a viable solution to the danger
#60148 - economic (03/23/2014) [-]
There is noting wrong with national socialism if the country practicing it follows paganism.
There is noting wrong with national socialism if the country practicing it follows paganism.
User avatar #60149 to #60148 - pebar (03/23/2014) [-]
except the limiting international trade bit, that part is pretty stupid
User avatar #60160 to #60149 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
To increase their own market by products made within the country.
#60167 to #60160 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]
And if those products are shit?
User avatar #60169 to #60167 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Then we import stuff and things.
User avatar #60177 to #60169 - pebar (03/24/2014) [-]
That's why people import in the first place: because some other country can produce something better than you.
User avatar #60179 to #60177 - schnizel (03/24/2014) [-]
Oh really?
#60138 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
why do people care about this woman?
#60162 to #60138 - minibeep (03/24/2014) [-]
shes what all females are
a sex symbol
#60141 to #60138 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
Becouse she's hot.
#60170 to #60141 - anonymous (03/24/2014) [-]
4/10 at best
#60244 to #60170 - smallwood (03/25/2014) [-]
Right-sec detected.

plz leave.
User avatar #60134 - johnstuartmill (03/23/2014) [-]
Should we use a criminal justice system that focuses on rehabilitating the wrongdoer back into society or stick with the current system of punishing wrongdoers?
User avatar #60213 to #60134 - thatguyontheright ONLINE (03/25/2014) [-]
Rehabilitation for smaller offenses.

For murder...let them rot in a psychological torture chamber where the faces of their victims are projected on the wall, and an implant is put into the convicts ear that plays a loop of people saying "you killed us, you monster" day in, and day out until they crack.
User avatar #60153 to #60134 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/24/2014) [-]
Depends on what is cheaper.
User avatar #60155 to #60153 - johnstuartmill (03/24/2014) [-]
Not which is more efficient? Just cheaper? xD
User avatar #60156 to #60155 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/24/2014) [-]
I would rather give a murderer the death penalty (with incredible evidence of course) instead of funding him for his life in prison or rehabilitation. If it's a drug related thing I want them to serve their time, no rehab because I don't want my taxes spent that way. If they want rehab they should pay themselves. I would never consider rehab, but death penalty vs prison time, the cheaper one is the death penalty. Also the argument that the death penalty is more expensive, that's wrong. The death penalty is as expensive as people make it. A murderer did it for free, why can't the government?
User avatar #60158 to #60156 - azumeow (03/24/2014) [-]
"A murderer did it for free, why can't the government?"

Do...do you REALLY want me to go ahead and explain why that's fucking retarded?
User avatar #60174 to #60158 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/24/2014) [-]
I know that death by lethal injection was argued on here as being more expensive. Why not just shoot them? The murderer probably didn't have to buy a ton of expensive stuff to do it.
User avatar #60137 to #60134 - pebar (03/23/2014) [-]
Depends on the crime. I still think putting drug dealers away is a waste of entrepreneurs.
User avatar #60143 to #60137 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Depends on the drug dealers really, some of them should get their asses kicked.
User avatar #60135 to #60134 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Both. Rehabilitation is important, but convicts should be punished according to their crime aswell, so that justice is served.
User avatar #60136 to #60135 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Also, separate 'petty criminals' from 'the professionals'.
User avatar #60139 to #60136 - johnstuartmill (03/23/2014) [-]
I do believe they still put people in jail when they rehabilitate them, but due to good behavior and such they may be pardoned earlier than they normally would be.
User avatar #60140 to #60139 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Yes, I was just saying there can't be that much emphasis on rehabilitation that punishment is ignored. Someone who murdered can't be released too early simply because it's determined that he is no longer a threat to society.
User avatar #60142 to #60140 - johnstuartmill (03/23/2014) [-]
Oh well of course. I was just assuming we were talking about small time crimes at this point because the more severe it gets the more complicated.
#60128 - pebar (03/23/2014) [-]
So apparently you don't have any rights within 100 miles of the border

User avatar #60131 to #60128 - johnstuartmill (03/23/2014) [-]
The 100-mile "Constitution free zone" is just Border patrols designated area to set up checkpoints to curb human smuggling into the states. The issue with having no rights comes from the checkpoints border patrol sets up that bypasses probable cause by detaining citizens that have drugs in the vehicle that amount to recreational use. The main issue, in my opinion, comes from them using drug dogs at these checkpoints rather than other methods, because they then catch small time crimes which they are not technically allowed to have. essentially they use the ambiguous nature of the law to attain more power than they were given.
#60130 to #60128 - eight (03/23/2014) [-]
Rise of the police state!
User avatar #60147 to #60130 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Is that from the movie?
User avatar #60151 to #60147 - eight (03/23/2014) [-]
V For Vendetta
User avatar #60152 to #60151 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
Should've said "a movie" instead...

I knew I've seen it somewhere.
#60116 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
ask a jewish person anything
User avatar #60117 to #60116 - feelythefeel (03/23/2014) [-]
Why are all of the Jews of the board anons?
#60118 to #60117 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
politis should always be discussed anonymously.
people are more honest when their name is not attached to their postings.
User avatar #60127 to #60118 - Shiny ONLINE (03/23/2014) [-]
We're all anonymous as to our real life identities.
User avatar #60122 to #60118 - schnizel (03/23/2014) [-]
Not for this Bosnian.
#60120 to #60118 - pebar (03/23/2014) [-]
It still is fairly anonymous. I don't know who feely is, where he lives, where he works, etc.
It's just convenient to know which Ideas belong to whom.
User avatar #60119 to #60118 - feelythefeel (03/23/2014) [-]
I suppose.
#60110 - feelythefeel (03/23/2014) [-]
Kettle War.
#60111 to #60110 - feelythefeel (03/23/2014) [-]
Battle of Karánsebes.
#60109 - feelythefeel has deleted their comment [-]
#60108 - jadewest (03/23/2014) [-]
The jews are behind ukraine and the missing malaysian flight
#60112 to #60108 - anonymous (03/23/2014) [-]
the funny thing is, they really are.

#60107 - jadewest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #60087 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/22/2014) [-]
Ok, I think this board needs a good debate. I have the topics:

1. Obamacare - good or bad?
2. Should the taxpayers fund contraceptives?
3. Do you support the Patriot Act?
4. Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
5. What economic policies support a growing economy?
6. Is there a decline in marriage? Why?
7. What should be done with the tax code?

I await your answers to argue / agree.
User avatar #60133 to #60087 - johnstuartmill (03/23/2014) [-]
1. Bad, Citizens should be allowed to use their income how they please and health care is not a right given by the government.
2. No, Contraceptives are used to reduce the risks of having sex and the taxpayers should not be burdened by the acts of 2 individuals because they do not want to pay for the risks of having sex.
3. No, it is a major intrusion in civil liberties with little benefit to security
4. In the Status Quo? No. If our penile system implemented a rehabilitation system rather than a punishment based system, then yes.
5. Free market with little to no government involvement.
6. Yes and no. Yes in the sense of divorces being at around 50% in the US. No in the sense that more people of different sexual preferences are marrying. Is the institution of marriage gone? No because adding gay marriage into the mix is not as bad as divorce, in my opinion.
7. Total simplification. If I had my perfect society Government does very little and no one has special treatments. I would have a head tax, but that is just me.

User avatar #60103 to #60087 - Ruspanic (03/23/2014) [-]
1. Mostly bad. I'm not even a socialist but I'm starting to think public universal healthcare/insurance would be better and even cheaper than Obamacare. Medical care IS crazy expensive in the US, and I think it's largely because insurance now covers so much that people don't bother shopping around, so there's no competition and market forces don't drive down prices. But I don't see Obamacare fixing that problem at all. And there's the individual and employer mandates, which I'm ideologically opposed to.
2. In theory, that's definitely not a legitimate government function and people should be responsible for their own sexual behavior. But practically speaking it might actually save taxpayer money by reducing the number of poor or unwanted children, who might need tax-funded government assistance, and who might prevent their parents from investing in their human capital and escaping poverty. And if it saves taxpayer money AND improves general welfare, it's hard to oppose.
3. No. Security is important but the Patriot Act goes overboard.
4. No.
5. If you want to keep up economic growth, free and open up your markets but also develop infrastructure and overhead capital. Regulation is necessary to a degree, but it's mostly for purposes other than economic growth (general welfare, environmental causes, etc). Also get money out of politics - the corporate lobby is not pro-free market.
6. In the US, definitely. This is well documented by increasing divorce rates and declining marriage rates. Part of it is that people (men and women both) are postponing marriage to pursue educations or advance their careers, and part of it is a changing attitude about marriage - it's now seen as an flexible and optional personal choice rather than a rigid social obligation. This has had some positive effects (greater personal freedom, tolerance of same-sex families), but it also results in less stable families.
7. Simplifying it is always good. Closing loopholes, etc. I'm not a tax lawyer.
User avatar #60096 to #60087 - Shiny ONLINE (03/23/2014) [-]
1. Bad, well intentioned but very half-assed. Full UHC or bust, nyugga
2. This is a pretty nebulous question. Just flinging boxes of publicly purchased Trojans at people would be a waste, but the pill is perfectly legitimate medication that should be covered by insurance.
3. Lol no
4. Ideally, traitors will have their voting rights revoked, but who gets to define what a traitor is? A great ethical dilemma, though some underachieving kid in for selling pot can probably vote for Ron Paul without destroying the government.
5. A pragmatic mixed market economy that leaves the needs of the public to the government when possible so companies can operate efficiently. We can neither give the government special rights to services like resource distribution and parcel delivery, nor expect the market to value the needs of the underprivileged when they have quotas to fill.
6. Yes, because marriage is stupid. Just pick someone you like and fuck them.
7. Like much American legal doctrine, paved over and replaced with something simple, sensible, flexible and modern. Remove most tax deductibles, legally define capital gains as income (fuck you and your $1 salary) and replace the dumbass arbitrary brackets with a progressive flat tax that exempts people under the poverty line.
User avatar #60098 to #60096 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/23/2014) [-]
I agree for the most part aside from 2. I don't think my taxes should fund contraceptives. Women argue that it helps them regulate periods and such, but the reality is that they have dealt with that long ago without contraceptives. As for the other use of contraceptives, I don't want to have my taxes pay for other people to have sex. There should be consequences for the risks you take and if you want to reduce the risks, you should pay for it yourself.
User avatar #60099 to #60098 - Shiny ONLINE (03/23/2014) [-]
Unfortunately, sex is one of those gray areas where society usually benefits better from saving people from their own mistakes than from letting them deal with it, since the end product is usually another citizen, and very possibly one raised poorly. And the menstrual effects of the pill might not be necessary, but hell, we might as well get rid of cars since we already had horses centuries ago.

That said, it's pointless to just spend tax money on prophylactics or whatever. I just think that healthcare systems should cover the pill.
User avatar #60100 to #60099 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/23/2014) [-]
the car and horse analogy has a major difference. A car is far far far more efficient than a horse.
User avatar #60101 to #60100 - Shiny ONLINE (03/23/2014) [-]
And women that don't get menstrual cramps are much more efficient in the workplace as well as when homemaking.
User avatar #60102 to #60101 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/23/2014) [-]
but only a couple days during the month, not every day.
User avatar #60105 to #60102 - Shiny ONLINE (03/23/2014) [-]
Up to about a week out of the month, actually, IIRC. And even a few days can be crippling to a woman in a competitive career.
User avatar #60106 to #60105 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/23/2014) [-]
but not having a car = no career.
User avatar #60093 to #60087 - pebar (03/22/2014) [-]
1. bad - pushes the cost on to employers which decreases employment
-------even if universal care was preferable (still thinking about it), Obamacare is not the way to go.
2. no - buy your own contraceptives
3. no - if you give up your freedom, the terrorists win
4. yes
5. the government keeping its dirty paws off
6. a bit - women are becoming more independent
7. simplify it and stop using it to incentivize behavior - complicated code increases the cost of business and "incentives" are only taken advantage of by the rich.
User avatar #60091 to #60087 - jewishcommunazi (03/22/2014) [-]
1- Not good, public care would be preferrable;
2- Maybe;
3- No;
4- No;
5- I personally support a nationalized economy operating through central planning, with a little bit of self-management to the mix in some cases.
6- Yes because of social changes, I guess.
7- I don't know what that is.
User avatar #60097 to #60091 - jewishcommunazi (03/23/2014) [-]
To be clear, people currently in jail shouldn't be allowed to vote, but people who already served their sentence and are now free should.
User avatar #60089 to #60087 - jadewest (03/22/2014) [-]
no opinion, it's not my country
no, but again it's not my country
depends on the severity of the crime
that'd take too long to answer and i cant be assessed to answer it
perhaps, perhaps not, but couples are waiting till they are a lot older to have kids (planned kids)
meh i dunno
User avatar #60090 to #60089 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/22/2014) [-]
These are good answers. Here are my responses:
1. Can't respond
2. I agree. A big counter argument is that viagra is funded by the taxpayers. And the truth is... I don't think those should be funded either. The government isn't obligated to improve your sex life (like viagra) or regulate the menstrual cycle (women didn't need it before contraception came out, they don't need it now).
3. I don't either. I believe that security has diminishing returns, and the patriot act is overkill and probably stops a couple incidents per year (clearly didn't stop the marathon bombings).
4. Agree. I think if you murder people you lost that right.
5. good point, maybe someone else with time on their hands will.
6. I think it is because of multiple things. Poverty, poor role models, the need to make 100k per year to have a stable life style.
User avatar #60081 - revengeforfreeze (03/22/2014) [-]
credit to alekksandar for the creation of this
User avatar #60084 to #60081 - schnizel (03/22/2014) [-]
 Friends (0)